Wilson v. Nix et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(dwilkerson, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
PAUL WILSON,
TDCJ # 01737074,
Plaintiff,
VS.
WILLIAM E NIX, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

April 23, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-321

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Paul Wilson brought this lawsuit alleging violation of his rights under the
Eighth Amendment. On March 12, 2018, this Court granted summary judgment for
Defendants and entered a final judgment dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims with
prejudice (Dkt. 55, 56). Plaintiff now has filed a motion for extension of time to file a
motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend this Court’s
judgment (Dkt. 60). On the same day, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. 58).
A motion under Rule 59(e) must be filed “no later than 28 days after the entry of
judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). The time limit under Rule 59(e) is mandatory and
jurisdictional; it may not be extended by waiver of the parties or by district court ruling.
U.S. Leather, Inc., v. H & W P’ship, 60 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1995). Rule 6 expressly
prohibits an extension of time to act under Rule 59(e). FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(2) (“A court
must not extend the time to act under . . . .Rule 59 (b), (d), and (e)”).

1/4

However, because Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a Rule 59(e)
motion was filed within twenty-eight days after entry of judgment, the Court will
construe the motion as a timely Rule 59(e) motion.

Plaintiff’s notice of appeal will

become effective when the Court rules on the Rule 59(e) motion. FED. R. APP. PRO.
4(a)(4)(A) & 4(a)(4)(B)(i). Until it becomes effective, the notice of appeal does not
deprive the Court of jurisdiction to consider the motion.
Rule 59(e) permits a litigant to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment. FED. R.
CIV. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days
after the entry of the judgment.”). A motion for reconsideration “is not the proper vehicle
for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or
raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479
(5th Cir. 2004). Instead, Rule 59(e) serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to
bring errors or newly discovered evidence to the Court’s attention. See In re Rodriguez,
695 F.3d 360, 371 (5th Cir. 2012). Moreover, “an unexcused failure to present evidence
available at the time of summary judgment provides a valid basis for denying a
subsequent motion for reconsideration.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
The Court’s summary judgment order dismissed Plaintiff’s claims because he
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Dkt. 55, at 10-13). Plaintiff did not dispute
the Attorney General’s evidence showing that he had failed to file a timely grievance
about complaints underlying his claims in this suit. The Court further held, in the
alternative, that summary judgment was warranted because Plaintiff had failed to state a
valid claim for relief under the relevant Eighth Amendment standards and because
2/4

Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity (id. at 14-21). Plaintiff responded to the
summary judgment motion (Dkt. 41) and the Court carefully considered his arguments.
In addition, Plaintiff filed pre-judgment motions for discovery and appointment of
counsel, which the Court denied as moot (Dkt. 55, at 21).
Plaintiff’s current motion seeks an additional thirty days to brief his request for
relief under Rule 59(e) for the following reasons: it has been difficult to locate persons
with knowledge and evidence of his claims because the relevant events took place over
three years ago; he has not been permitted discovery; he has suffered retaliation for filing
grievances and this suit; he has been denied “indigent legal supplies and related
resources,” hindering his access to the courts, for the past three-and-a-half weeks; and, he
wishes to defend against Defendants’ summary judgment motions.
To the extent Plaintiff’s current arguments are relevant to his claims in this suit,
Plaintiff had full opportunity to present these arguments before entry of judgment, and
the Court carefully considered his opposition to summary judgment. None of the grounds
asserted in Plaintiff’s current motion would alter the Court’s ruling that summary
judgment was warranted because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Moreover, the Court considered and denied Plaintiff’s pre-judgment requests for
discovery. A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is not the proper vehicle to
rehash legal theories or arguments that were, or could have been, previously raised.
Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.

3/4

See

Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to file a Rule 59(e) motion (Dkt. 60) is DENIED.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 23rd day of April, 2018.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

4/4